Close Relationships, Gender, and Career Salience

Sex Roles, Vol. 42, Nos. 9/10, 2000

Close Relationships, Gender, and Career Salience1

Miguel Moya,2 Francisca Exposito, and Josefa RuizUniversity of Granada

According to traditional gender roles and stereotypes, men are given theprimary role of breadwinners (work orientation), whereas women are respon-sible for the nurturance of children and the maintenance of the family dwelling(family orientation). Therefore, it could be presumed that women and menwith a steady romantic relationship give a different importance to their career.However, several factors may affect the relation between close relationshipsand career salience, namely, (1) characteristics of the individual (educationand employment status, gender ideology, gender role identity), (2) character-istics of the relationship (e.g., dependence on the partner, presence or notof children), and (3) characteristics of the partner (e.g., gender ideology,educational attainment). Moreover, these factors may affect career saliencedifferentially in men and women. Both members of 148 Spanish couples, allwhite and middle-class, answered an individual questionnaire. The resultsshow that women and men obtained similar scores in career salience. How-ever, women with children, a low educational level, and traditional genderideology and those who were strongly influenced by their partners showedlower career salience than women with the opposite characteristics. Moreover,whereas career salience among men was unrelated to the characteristics oftheir partners, career salience among women was related to the gender ideol-ogy, labor situation, and educational attainment of their partners.

In recent years, women have increasingly entered the labor force andadvanced educational training. In most developed Western countries, thegrowth in the proportion of women in those areas appears to be steadyand continuing. For instance, in the 80s women represented over half of

1This research was made possible by a grant from the Spanish Women’s Institute (Institutode la Mujer). Portions of this article were presented at the General Meeting of the EuropeanAssociation of Experimental Social Psychology, Gmunden (Austria), July 1996.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Facultad de Psicologıa, Universidad deGranada, 18011, Granada, Spain. e-mail: [email protected].

825

0360-0025/00/0500-0825$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

826 Moya, Exposito, and Ruiz

the people obtaining university degrees in the United States, the formerSoviet Union, and most Western countries. In Spain, the proportion ofwomen in the labor force rose from 28.5% in 1980 to 38.4% in 1999, andamong the people with university degrees women increased their presencefrom 42.9% in 1980 to 53.03% in 1998 (INE, 1999).

However, women and men are still concentrated in different occupa-tions and educational programs and women are still underrepresented inmany high-status occupational fields and among the labor force in general.In Spain, for instance, in 1998 women represented only 28.3% of studentsin technical university courses (engineering, architecture. . .) (INE, 1999)and in 1993 they represented only 12.7% of the higher managerial positionsin public and private organizations (Instituto de la Mujer, 1997). One ofthe strongest and most consistent findings across countries is that work isgender-segregated (Gutek, 1988). Women are usually concentrated in afew occupations (i.e., administrative clerks, teachers, nurses, sales clerks)which generally match the picture of women portrayed in traditional genderstereotypes, and the proportion of women is especially high in part-timejobs (in Spain women represented 67% of people in this category in 1997).Women’s jobs are lower-paid than men’s jobs, even when they requirecomparable effort and training (in Spain the salary of women was 33%lower than that of men in 1997). For women, potential advancement laddersare shorter and allow promotion to executive or administrative levels lessfrequently (Gutek, 1988). Career experiences and advancement of womenare different from those of men in many professional areas, with moststudies finding that men advance faster, farther, and with greater compensa-tion (Phillips & Imhoff, 1997).

The differences mentioned above are still obvious in the occupationalaspirations and plans of contemporary high-school students (Jozefowicz,Barber, & Eccless, 1993). Thus, it is plausible that women’s career orienta-tion and career salience are different from those of men. In other words,women probably still consider their professional career as something lessimportant than men do. Career orientation has been conceptualized as acontinuous variable reflecting the degree of preferred work involvement(concurrent involvement in the homemaker role) (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987)and career salience is defined as the relative importance of work and careerin one’s life overall (Greenhaus & Simon, 1971).

Specifically, career salience seems to play an important role in voca-tional behavior. For instance, Greenhaus (1971) found that career saliencewas, in college students, significantly related to the prestige of the chosenoccupation, the level of education aspired to, the degree of occupationalsatisfaction, the degree of self-reported effort expended in schoolwork, andthe self-rating of ambition, scholarship, and persuasiveness. In a different

Gender and Career Salience 827

sample, Hock and DeMeis (1990) found among mothers of 12-month-oldinfants that those with high scores in career salience were more likely towork after childbirth and that they would prefer to work rather than stayat home.

Results of many studies suggest that despite the extent of women’soccupational involvement and the indication that women’s aspirations havesubstantially increased over the past decades (Gerstein, Lichtman, & Baro-kas, 1988), men’s goals and aspirations exceed those of women (Mednick &Thomas, 1993). For instance, Leung, Conoley, and Scheel (1994) have foundthat women generally continue to have lower career aspirations than docomparably talented males. Today many women are still socialized to be-lieve that having a partner or getting married is the first priority in life andthat achieving financial independence and career recognition is secondaryto their role as caregiver and partner (Gilbert, 1993). Despite what maybe seen as increasing flexibility about women’s roles, significant negativeconsequences can still be expected if women engage in gender-role deviantbehavior, such as academic achievement or career success (Pfost & Fiore1990).

Many factors contribute to the gendered pattern of career salienceand educational and occupational choices, ranging from those of a socialnature (i.e., gender discrimination and labor policies) to those of a psycho-logical or social–psychological character. For instance, the literature on theglass ceiling suggests that women do not advance in their organizationsbecause of an artificial barrier that constrains them. This barrier is not anaccurate measure of performance but, rather, a barrier based solely uponthe fact that they are female. Female managers can perceive this lack ofcareer opportunities in their current company and turnover, for instance,at a higher rate than male managers (Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1996).

The social–psychological explanations of career salience and educa-tional and occupational choices have focused on how cultural norms andother social factors influence career aspirations and vocational choices (Ec-cles, 1994). For instance, Farmer (1985) provides both data and a multidi-mensional model to predict three motivational dimensions in women andmen, namely, aspiration, mastery, and career commitment: (1) background(gender, status, race, age, abilities); (2) personal (academic self-esteem,expressive and independent conceptions of the self, achievement styles,intrinsic values, success attributions to effort and ability, and homemakingcommitment); and (3) environmental (support from parents and teachersand perception of support for working women). In their comprehensivesummary of the existent research on the career psychology of women, Betzand Fitzgerald (1987) suggest two categories of facilitative factors: theindividual and the background. Background factors that facilitate the career


development of women include a working mother, a supportive father,highly educated parents, female role models, and work experience. Theindividual factors that Betz and Fitzgerald identify as facilitative includeinstrumentality, an androgynous personality, high self-esteem, strong aca-demic self-concept, high ability, and liberated gender-role values.

In this research we studied two kinds of these social–psychologicalfactors. The first involved some individual characteristics and the secondconcerned the close relationship between the men and women and somecharacteristics of the partner.

Personal Characteristics

Among the individual’s social–psychological characteristics related tocareer salience and aspirations, certain gender-related constructs play avery important role. Gender ideology and self-perceptions in genderedterms (instrumentality–expressivity) are good examples of this. Concerninggender ideology or gender role attitudes, the results of several studies showthat only women with a traditional gender ideology have lower educationaland professional aspirations and give less importance to their career (Phil-lips & Imhoff, 1997). Compared to men, women with a feminist genderideology give the same or even more importance to their career (Peplau,Hill, & Rubin, 1993). One of the most consistent findings in research litera-ture concerns the greater trend of career-oriented women to express liberalor feminist attitudes (Betz, 1994).

Research has also shown that feminine (or expressive) gender-roleidentity (for men and women) is associated with a choice of female-domi-nated majors and occupations. Masculine or instrumental gender role iden-tity is associated with a choice of male-dominated majors and occupations(Basow, 1992, p. 273), a strong commitment to a career (Holm & Esses,1988), and a higher level of occupational achievement (Chow, 1987). Re-search has consistently and convincingly shown the importance of instru-mentality to women’s career development (Betz, 1994).

There are other social–psychological characteristics of the individualthat are related to career salience and aspirations: personality, attitudes,and values (those related to gender are exposed above), interests, abilities,self-esteem, education, etc. (Betz, 1994; Gilbert et al., 1994). We focus ontwo of these factors, labor status and educational attainment, because, aswe already mentioned above, both factors have dramatically changed inSpain over the last years.

As for labor status, several approaches to women’s career developmentinclude previous work experience as a facilitative factor for their career


development (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987). Women with a job outside thehome have somewhat broken the traditional gender work division andprobably give more importance to their career than do women with thetraditional role of housewives. For instance, Claes, Martin, Coetsier, andSuper (1995) found among women in the Southeast United States that forthose who did not work outside the home, homemaker was their mostsalient role, but for women who did work outside the home, homemakerand worker were equally important roles.

The nature and level of the education obtained are closely related tosubsequent career achievements and to adult socioeconomic status andlifestyle. Thus, for men and women, the education received is an importantvariable in the study of their career development. According to Betz (1994),along with marital status and family-related priorities, education can beconsidered the most important variable in women’s career development.Research findings also show that higher education and college and advanceddegrees not only make it more likely for women to wish to become partof the labor force but also increase their professional expectations (Ba-sow, 1992).

Close Relationships Characteristics and Career Salience

Research on gender influences on vocational behavior shows a trendin topic selection that goes from understanding women’s career develop-ment as an internal process (e.g., the woman’s gender-role orientation) tounderstanding women’s career development within the social contexts ofwork environments and relationships (Brooks & Forrest, 1994). Thus, animportant aspect of the background of individuals which is related to theirprofessional career is not usually included in the models about women’scareer above mentioned: their close heterosexual relationships, especiallymarriage, motherhood, and other characteristics of the relationship as apower balance.

Nevertheless, the most important finding in research about work andfamily is that a husband and/or children impede a woman’s work progress(Gutek, 1988). Thus, although men may be taking on increasing responsibil-ity for both child care and the household tasks, women continue to bearprimary responsibility for caregiving at home despite their employmentstatus or the presence of children (Shelton & Firestone, 1988). Moreover,women with careers, or women who aspire to them, also have to contendwith problems arising from conflicts with their husbands’ careers. Thus,the involvement of wives in their husbands’ careers is common (Miller &Garrison, 1982) and this is reflected in geographical mobility, contributions


to their husbands’ central work activities, economic support, and postpone-ment of their own career and career adjunct roles (Kotkin, 1983). Conse-quently, there is a vast array of data showing strong inverse relationshipsbetween being married and the number of children, on one hand, and avery measurable criterion of career involvement and achievement, on theother [see Betz & Fitzgerald (1987) for a comprehensive review]. Especiallywomen for whom husband and children are a high priority tend to downscaletheir career aspirations, relative to other women and men, whereas menhave not had to downscale their career aspirations in order to have a family(Betz, 1994).

In addition, others such as employers see marriage and children as aburden or hindrance for a woman’s career (Bronstein, Black, Pfening, &White, 1987). Thus, although there have been considerable changes inattitudes toward gender roles, research suggests that employed motherstend to be viewed as less devoted to their families, less sensitive to theneeds of others, less affectionate, and more selfish than mothers who stayat home (Etaugh & Nekolny, 1990).

Research has not shown a unanimous pattern of findings concerningthe relationship between marriage and children, on one hand, and thecareer development of men, on the other. Some data show that employerstend to view marriage and children as assets to a man’s career (Bronstein etal., 1987). Family involvement has probably served to increase and facilitatemen’s career involvement because it gives them a strong rationale forachievement-related behavior (Betz, 1994). However, other researchershave found that family responsibilities constrain men’s careers as well aswomen’s (Covin & Brush, 1991) and that men in dual-career families, forinstance, are less successful professionally than men whose wives are notemployed (Miller & Garrison, 1982). Nevertheless, all available researchsuggests that women are affected by work–family conflicts to a greaterextent than men (Covin & Brush, 1991; Eckenrode & Gore, 1990; Miller &Garrison, 1982).

Besides having a steady relationship (or marriage) or not and thepresence and number of children, other characteristics of the relationshipsuch as the power balance can influence women’s and men’s career salience.The degree of interdependence with the partner is a concept that is differentfrom and independent of the emotional tone or satisfaction with the rela-tionship. It can be assumed that women in relationships in which theirpartners strongly influence their everyday behavior, decisions, plans, andgoals will present lower career salience because equity and power distribu-tion in the relationship are among the main factors related to career devel-opment (Gilbert, 1993). Couples in which many of the decisions taken bywomen are influenced by their partners probably follow a traditional gen-


der-role division according to which it is not normal for a woman to workoutside the home or have a professional career. However, men’s careersalience can be less affected or not affected at all by their partner’s influencebecause, according to traditional conceptions, men’s career is ‘‘taken forgranted,’’ and as shown above, their career does not seem to depend asmuch on their family situation. Moreover, men’s expectations may be amore important determinant of interaction sequences in mixed-sex dyadsthan are women’s expectations. For instance, Davis and Gilbert (1989)found that high dominant women paired with low dominant men becameleaders 71% of the time. However, high dominant women paired with highdominant men assumed the leadership role only 31% of the time.

Besides the characteristics of the relationship of any given man orwoman, the characteristics of the other person also involved in the relation-ship may also be important for his/her career salience. Although somemodels (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Farmer, 1985) include the role of somepersons (parents, teachers) in men and women’s career development, thereis little research that considers the partner’s influence on this variable whenpeople are involved in a close relationship. However, an important aspectof the environment in women’s career choices is the attitude of significantmales in that environment (Bestz & Fitzgerald, 1987). Thus, for instance,husbands having traditional attitudes toward the roles of women wouldpossibly be less satisfied in a dual-career marriage than would those havingmore contemporary or profeminist attitudes toward women’s roles (Hard-esty & Betz, 1980).

The final purpose of this research was to analyze whether the personalvariables considered (gender ideology, instrumentality, labor status, educa-tional attainment) are more or less important than relationship variables(being married or not, children, and dependence on the partner) in pre-dicting career salience. We also intended to see if this importance followedthe same pattern in men and women. It was difficult to predict what kindof variables would be more important for several reasons. First, althoughprevious research clearly suggested that relationship characteristics aremore important for women than for men, there was little research thatcompared personal and relationship variables (within each gender). Second,whereas some studies have compared situational (among which relationshipvariables can be included) and personal variables, the characteristics consid-ered are different from the variables included in our study. For instance,Tharenou and Conroy (1994) compared personal and situational determi-nants in the advancement of men and women managers and found that forwomen and men the situation was more associated with advancement thanwere personal variables. However, among the personal variables theseauthors included attitudes (self-confidence, success attributions, and pre-


paredness to move to another place), work-relevant demographic variables(level of education, work experience, moves for advancement), and earlysocialization. Among situation variables Tharenou and Conroy includedwork situation structure (length of career ladder, male hierarchy, publicvs. private sector) and home situation (home responsibilities, role compati-bility). Finally, it is important to note that, although the independent vari-ables utilized in the study of women’s career salience and choices haveincluded those emphasized in the study of men (abilities, interests, socioeco-nomic background, etc.), some variables (marital/family status, gender roleattitudes, and role conflict) are the major independent variables consideredto be uniquely pertinent to women’s career (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987, p.25). For all these reasons, our study basically explores whether the personalvariables considered are more or less important than relationship variablesand if this importance follows the same pattern in men and women.

In this research, conducted with Spanish couples, first, we studiedwhether women’s career salience was lower than men’s. Second, we ana-lyzed whether some variables traditionally related to career salience andwhich concerned personal characteristics presented the same pattern ofrelation to career salience in men and women. Specifically, it was predictedthat career salience would be related to a feminist gender ideology amongwomen but to a traditional gender ideology among men. We also hypothe-sized that self-perception in instrumental terms (instrumentality) would bepositively related to career salience in both men and women. Educationalattainment would be positively related to career salience, especially amongwomen. We did not have any precise hypotheses about this relationship inthe case of men, but we expected men’s career salience to be less affectedby this variable. A purpose of the present research was also to study therelation between labor status (having a job or not) and career salience inmen and women. We analyzed whether the increasing proportion of womenin the labor force and advanced educational training was associated withtheir professional aspirations and if this pattern also appeared among menor was something specific to women. Third, we analyzed the associationbetween some characteristics of the close relationship and career saliencein men and women. We hypothesized that women would be more influencedby their relationship than men. Specifically, it was predicted that women’scareer salience would be lower when they were married, had children,and were dependent on men in their relationship. We also predicted that,whereas career salience among men would be unrelated to the characteris-tics of their partners, career salience among women would be related tosome characteristics of their partners (e.g., gender ideology, educationalattainment). Finally, we analyzed whether personal versus relationship fac-tors have the same importance in men and women’s career salience.


METHOD

The study used three main theoretical concepts: career salience, gender,and factors related to career. Career salience was used as the criterion.Gender was used as a moderator. The factors related to career were usedas predictors and two kinds of factors were considered: characteristics ofcouples and partners as well as characteristics of the individual (includinggender constructs, educational attainment and labor status).

Participants

One hundred forty-eight heterosexual couples, all living in easternAndalusia (Spain), participated in this study. All the participants werewhite and can be characterized as belonging predominantly to the middle-class. Respondents were recruited in several ways: some of them werepsychology or sociology students who acceded to participate as part of theircourse requirements; others were relatives of psychology students (thestudents had asked them to participate); and 62 couples were parents withchildren in four municipal nurseries in Granada (Spain), a city with apopulation of about 300,000. The supervisors of these centers allowed usto present the objectives of our research to parents, and questionnaireswere given only to respondents willing to participate. They returned thequestionnaires, leaving them in a box in the nursery. In every case wemade sure that both members of each couple wanted to participate. Theinstructions emphasized that all persons should answer the questionnaireindividually and avoid discussing the content with their partners until theyhad finished. A code was included to match members of each couple butthe answers were anonymous.

Seventy-nine couples were married or living together and 69 had chil-dren (M � 2.27, SD � 1.2). The average age of participants was 30.75(SD � 11.03, range � 18 to 62). The mean ages were 31.6 years for menand 29.9 years for women. One hundred fifty-nine participants (102 menand 57 women) had a job at that moment (although 65 of these jobs werenot full-time jobs).

In some analyses there is a reduction in the n’s due to missing data.

Measurements

Criteria

The Career Salience Scale (Greenhaus, 1971) was used as the maindependent variable. This scale contained 27 items with a 5-point Likert


format (strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain, agree, and strongly agree).Seventeen of the items were positively worded and 10 were negativelyworded. The content of the items represented three broad areas: (a) generalattitudes toward work (i.e., ‘‘Work is one of the few areas in life whereyou can obtain real satisfaction’’); (b) degree of vocationally relevant plan-ning and thought (‘‘I enjoy thinking about and making plans about myfuture career’’); and (c) the priority ascribed to an occupation relative toother sources of satisfaction (‘‘I intend to pursue the job of my choice evenif it cuts deeply into the time I have for my family’’). The total CareerSalience Score is the sum of the answers to the 27 items. The theoreticalrange of scores on the CSS is 27 to 135. Higher scores reflect higher degreesof career salience. The � coefficient was .8. For the different subscales the� coefficients were as follows: planning and thinking, .58; relative impor-tance, .61; and general attitudes, .66.

Scores in this scale have been positively related to the level of educationaspired to and the nontraditional character of the occupational choice(Hackett, Esposito, & O’Halloran, 1989), the person’s sense of agency(confidence and self-determination) (Kush & Cochran, 1993), the perceivedprestige of the chosen occupation, the degree of occupational satisfaction,the degree of self-reported effort expended in schoolwork, and the self-rating of ambition, scholarship, and persuasiveness (Greenhaus, 1971).

Predictors

Characteristics of Individuals. Two measures related to gender wereincluded: gender ideology and gender-role identity. To measure genderideology, (i.e., attitudes toward traditional versus egalitarian roles forwomen and men), we used the Spanish Sex Role Ideology Scale (Moya,Navas, & Gomez 1991). This 38-item scale was designed by Moya and co-workers taking items from some of the most widely used scales aboutgender role or gender ideology (i.e., Spence et al.’s Attitudes TowardWomen Scale). Items belong mainly to the following domains: work rolesof men and women (i.e., ‘‘There are many jobs where men should have apriority over women in promotions’’), parents’ responsibilities (i.e., ‘‘It ismore appropriate for a mother rather than a father to change the baby’sdiapers’’), personal relationships between men and women (i.e., ‘‘A marriedwoman should feel free to have male friends’’), housework (i.e., ‘‘Whenwomen work outside the home household tasks should be equitably distrib-uted between men and women’’), and sexuality (i.e., ‘‘It is more importantfor a woman than a man to remain a virgin until marriage’’). Twenty-oneitems were worded in an equalitarian direction and 17 items were worded


in a traditional direction. The answer format ranked from 1 (I totally agree)to 100 (I totally disagree). Scores in traditional items were reversed; thus,higher scores mean a more equalitarian gender-role ideology. The � coeffi-cient was .8.

To measure gender-role identity we used our own 26-item scale: 13concerning instrumentality (� � .74) and 13 expressivity (� � .75). Partici-pants rated themselves on 7-point scales (from ‘‘not at all’’ to ‘‘very’’).These scales were selected from previous studies about gender stereotypesand gender-role orientation (mainly from the Personal Attributes Question-naire and Bem’s Sex Role Inventory). Instrumental or masculine attributeswere ambitious, can make decisions easily, competitive, independent, bold,individualistic, dominant, aggressive, has leadership abilities, defends ownbeliefs, strong, athletic, and masculine. Feminine or expressive attributeswere emotional, kind, tactful, soft-spoken, feminine, aware of the feelingsof others, sympathetic, cheerful, warm, affectionate, shy, flatterable, andloyal. Scores in the instrumental and expressive items were averaged.

Regarding the labor status of individuals, a single item with six optionswas included (participants could mark more than one alternative): no, yes(half-time), yes (full-time), work by the hour, occasional work all year, andwork only during the holidays. For analysis purposes, respondents wereclassified as either having a job (including the latter five categories, with adummy score of 0) or not having a job (a dummy score of 1).

According to their level of higher education, participants were classi-fied into five categories: primary school, vocational training, compulsoryeducation, secondary education, and college. For the analysis, two groupswere formed: people in the first three categories were put together becauseall of them had spent less than 10 years at school (a dummy score of 0).People in the last two categories were placed into another group (they hadspent more than 10 years) (a dummy score of 1). Vocational training stu-dents usually spend more than 10 years at school. However, these studiesare considered less prestigious and demanding. Therefore, this group wasincluded in the first category and not in the second one.

Characteristics of Couples. The characteristics of couples that we con-sidered were the following: (a) whether the couple was married/livingtogether or not, (b) parenthood, (c) the power balance of the relationship,and (d) satisfaction with and emotional tone of the relationship.

If the couple was married or living together, a dummy score of 1 wasassigned. Otherwise, a dummy score of 0 was assigned.

According to the parenthood variable, participants were classified aseither having children (a dummy score of 0) or not having children (adummy score of 1).

The Strength subscale of the Closeness Relationship Inventory


(Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989) was included to measure power bal-ance in the relationships. This is a 34- item measure of the extent to whichpartners influence each other’s everyday behavior, decisions, plans, andgoals (� � .84), for instance, ‘‘My partner will influence my future financialsecurity or my partner influences the basic values I hold.’’ These itemsinclude more mundane activities (i.e., what one watches on TV) as well asmore significant plans and behaviors (i.e., career and family plans). Theresponse format is from 1 (I strongly disagree) to 7 (I strongly agree).Scores could range from 34 to 238. Higher scores (after reverse-scoringappropriate items) indicated greater strength of impact.

To measure the satisfaction and emotional tone in the relationship weincluded four items: (1) All in all, how satisfied are you with your relation-ship? (2) All in all, how satisfied is your partner with your relationship?(3) How much in love are you with your partner? and (4) How much inlove do you think your partner is with you? All the questions had a replyformat of 9 points (from 1, ‘‘not satisfied at all’’ to 9, ‘‘extremely satisfied’’).The alpha coefficient for these four items was .88. The answers to thesefour items were averaged, thus obtaining a satisfaction/qualitative rate ofthe relationship. Higher scores mean higher satisfaction.

RESULTS

Descriptive Analysis

Career Salience and Labor Status

Female and male participants did not differ in their scores on theCareer Salience Scale [80.82 for men and 81.35 for women, F(1,287) � .39,p � .53]. Neither men nor women differed in their scores on the three CareerSalience Scale subscales. These scores were lower than those obtainedin other studies, where mainly college samples were used. For instance,Greenhaus (1971) found scores of 90.78 for college men and 87.89 forcollege women. Studying dual-worker couples, Hardesty and Best (1980)found scores of 88 for women and 86.4 for men. More recently, Moya andPeplau (1992) found mean scores of 91.64 in a U.S. college sample and86.02 in a Spanish college sample and Kush and Cochran (1993) reportedmean scores in U.S. adolescents of between 85.4 and 87.8.

According to the labor status of participants, differences between menand women were highly significant: whereas 70.8% of men were workingat that moment, only 40.7% of women were in this situation, [�2(1,287) �27.16, p � .0000].


Curiously, participants who were working at that moment obtainedlower scores on the Career Salience Scale than those without a job(M � 78.86 and M � 83.87). This trend was the same in men and women.

Individual Variables

Women (M � 74.46) clearly showed a more equalitarian gender ideol-ogy than men (M � 66.35) [F(1,229) � 17.52, p � .000]. Men obtainedhigher scores than women on the scale of Instrumentality (52.46 vs. 47.90)[F(1,291) � 14.0, p � .000], whereas women obtained higher scores thanmen on Expressivity (62.62 vs. 57.51) [F(1,282) � 29.7, p � .000].

There were no differences between men and women in their educa-tional attainment: 70.5% of women and 66.4% of men had spent more than10 years at school [�2(1,292) � .57, p � .45].

Couple Variables

Obviously, scores of men and women were identical on the variablesnumber of children and marriage/living together. On the Strength Subscaleof the Closeness Relationship Inventory more men (M � 145.62) indicatedthat their partner had a great influence in their life than women (M �134.13) [F(1,293) � 13.14, p � .0003]. On the Satisfaction and EmotionalTone of the Relationship Scale there were no significant differences be-tween men and women: men scored 7.86 and women 7.8.

Individual Versus Relationship Characteristics and Career Salience:The Moderating Effect of Gender

A stepwise multiple regression analysis was carried out independentlyfor women and men on Career Salience Scale score as the criterion. Theparticipants’ scores on the following measures served as predictors: StrengthSubscale of the Closeness Relationships Inventory, Satisfaction with theRelationship Subscale, Sex Role Ideology Scale, Instrumentality and Ex-pressivity Subscales, and the dummy variables marriage/living together,parenthood, labor status, and educational attainment.

The results suggested that women who obtained high scores on theCareer Salience Scale were highly educated, had a equalitarian genderideology and were not married or living with their partner [� � .27, .24,and �.21, respectively; R2 � .26, F(3,95) � 11.26, p � .0000]. Men’s scores


on the Career Salience Scale were relatively higher among those who werehigh in instrumentality, had a traditional gender ideology, and did not havea job [� � .3, �.21, and .18, respectively; R2 � .17, F(3,113) � 7.58,p � .0001]. The variance of career salience explained by the variablesconsidered was higher in the case of women than in that of men: adjustedR2 values were .24 for women and .14 for men.

The potential moderating effect of gender was analyzed using a moder-ated regression analysis (Jaccard, Turrisi, & Wan, 1990). Correlationsamong the variables are displayed in Table I. A series of regression analyseswas carried out on Career Salience Scale scores as the criteria. For everypredictor variable, two regression analyses were carried out. In the firstanalysis, gender and the specific predictor, were included in the equation.In the second regression analysis, variables included in the equation weregender, the specific predictor, and the interaction between both variables.If an interaction effect is present, then the difference between the two R2

values should be statistically significant. To compare both R2 we use the Fformula proposed by Jaccard et al. (1990, p. 18). Significant moderatedhierarchical regressions were followed by a z test of the correlation differ-ence on the subgroup correlations for men and women. Table II displays theresults of the regression analyses and the F hierarchical test of differencesbetween the two R2 values.

The results suggest that gender clearly moderated the effect of twopredictors of Career Salience: gender-role ideology and educational attain-ment. The potential moderating effect of gender was almost significant intwo other predictors: parenthood and the strength of the relationship. Thez test of correlation difference for men and women suggested that havinga equalitarian ideology was related to career salience for women (r � .31),whereas the opposite can be said about men: career salience was relatedto the maintenance of a sexist gender role ideology (r � �.19, z � �4.46,p � .000). A high level of education was positively related to career saliencefor women (r � .42) but not for men (r � .07, z � 2.55, p � .00). Beingdependent in their close relationship was negatively related to career sa-lience for women (r � �.23) but not for men (r � �.03, z � �1.92,p � .03). And having children was marginally related to lower careersalience scores to a greater extent for women (r � �.37) than for men(r � �.18, z � 1.46, p � .07).

We were also interested in analyzing whether the career salience ofmen and women was related to some characteristics of partners. In thiscase, each couple was considered as a participant and correlations wereobtained between scores on the Career Salience Scale and the predictorvariables considered, but at this point the predictors were considered tobe characteristics not of individuals but of partners. The variables children

Tab

leI.

Cor

rela

tion

sA

mon

gA

llV

aria

bles

12

34

56

78

910

1.St

reng

thof

rela

tion

ship

.15

.54*

**.4

8***

�.0

6.1

3�

.06

�.0

4�

.25*

*�

.03

2.Sa

tisf

acti

onw

ith

rela

tion

ship

�.1

3�

.17*

�.1

4.2

3.0

8.3

2***

.03

�.0

3�

.09

3.M

arri

age/

livin

gto

geth

er.5

9***

�.1

1.8

4***

�.1

1�

.15

�.1

3�

.17*

�.3

4***

�.2

4**

(no

�0)

4.P

aren

thoo

d(n

o�

0)�

.54*

**�

.07

.83*

**�

.18*

�.1

4�

.18*

�.2

2*�

.32*

**�

.18*

5.G

ende

rid

eolo

gy�

.17

�.0

5�

.13

�.1

5�

.02

.16

.25*

*�

.02

�.1

9*6.

Inst

rum

enta

lity

�.0

6*.0

1�

.13

�.1

6.2

2*�

.00

.14

.02

.26*

*7.

Exp

ress

ivit

y�

.18*

*.1

4�

.09

�.0

8�

.06

�.0

6.0

2.0

3�

.03

8.E

duca

tion

alat

tain

men

t�

.25*

*�

.00

�.4

5***

�.4

7***

.31*

**.2

2**

.02

.13

.07

(low

degr

ees

�0)

9.L

abor

stat

us(y

es�

0)�

.31*

**.1

5�

.28*

*�

.25*

*�

.00

.05

.11

.05

.22*

10.

Car

eer

Salie

nce

Scal

e�

.23*

*�

.04

�.4

1***

�.3

7***

.31*

**.2

0*.0

5.4

2***

1.8*

Not

e:C

orre

lati

ons

abov

eth

edi

agon

alar

efo

rm

ale

part

icip

ants

;co

rrel

atio

nsbe

low

the

diag

onal

are

for

fem

ale

part

icip

ants

.*p

�.0

5.**

p�

.01.

***p

�.0

01.


Table II. Summary of Hierarchical Regressions

Step Predictor � R R2 �R2 F df

1 Gender �.4Strength of relationship �.25** .14 .02

2 Gender � Strength of .45a .18 .03 .01 2.78a 3,247relationship

1 Gender �.02Satisfaction with relationship �.05 .06 .00

2 Gender � Satisfaction with �.01 .06 .00 .00 .18 3,254relationship

1 Gender �.12Marriage/living together �.42*** .33 .11

(no � 0)2 Gender � Marriage/living .17 .34 .12 .01 2.71 3,262

together1 Gender �.11

Parenthood (no � 0) �.39*** .28 .082 Gender � Parenthood .19b .30 .09 .01 3.34b 3,2551 Gender 1.39***

Gender ideology .42*** .02 .002 Gender � Gender ideology �1.35*** .26 .07 .05 18.43*** 3,2491 Gender �.26

Instrumentality .19* .22 .052 Gender � Instrumentality .21 .23 .05 .00 .54 3,2591 Gender .25

Expressivity .05 .04 .002 Gender � Expressivity �.28 .05 .00 .00 .35 3,2531 Gender .29**

Educational attainment .45*** .25 .06(low degrees � 0)

2 Gender � Educational �.40** .31 .10 .04 10.13** 3,259attainment

1 Gender .03Labor status (yes � 0) .21** .20 .04

2 Gender � Labor status .005 .20 .04 .00 .00 3,255

Note: Beta refers to the final-step beta weights. F obtained comparing regression equationincluding gender and one predictor with gender, the predictor, and the interaction gender bypredictor. *p � .05. **p � .01. ***p � .001. ap � .07. bp � .06.

(yes or no) and marriage/living together were excluded because these vari-ables have the same value when concerning the participants and theirpartners. The correlation between the score of each participant and his/her partner in the Career Salience Scale was also computed.

Results show that career salience in men was not related to any oftheir partners’ characteristics. However, women’s scores in the Career Sa-lience Scale were related to having a nonsexist partner (r � .24, p � .006),a partner without a job (r � .18, p � .05), with a higher educationalattainment (r � .18, p � .04), and marginally with a high expressivity


(r � .23, p � .08). Scores of men and women from the same couple in theCareer Salience Scale were also correlated (r � .35, p � .000).

In order to compare the relationship between characteristics of theindividual and career salience and between characteristics of the relation-ship and career salience, several hierarchical regression analyses were per-formed separately for men and women. Results appear in Table III. In a firstgroup of regression analyses, characteristics of individuals were included inthe first step (gender ideology, instrumentality, expressivity, and the dummyvariables labor status and educational attainment). In the second step,relationship variables were added (strength of the relationship, satisfactionwith the relationship, and the dummy variables marriage/living togetherand parenthood). In a second group of regression analyses, relationshipvariables were included in the first step and individual variables were addedin the second step. The results showed that, for both men and women,characteristics of individuals were higher predictors. Adding individualvariables to an equation containing relationship variables significantly in-creased the R2 of that equation. Moreover, the reverse was not true: addingrelationship variables to equations containing individual variables did notenhance explanatory power.

DISCUSSION

In this study we were interested in analyzing if maintaining a datingrelationship can be related to a decrease in the importance women give totheir career. Results clearly show that having a dating relationship in itselfis not related to a decrease in the importance women give to their career.According to our results, men and women give the same importance to

Table III. Hierarchical Regression Tests of Characteristics of Individuals and Relationshipson Career Salience

Model R2 �R2 F(df) p

MenRelationship variables .08 2.54(4,112) �.04

ADD individual variables .20 .12 3.07(9,107) �.01a

Individual variables .17 4.49(5,111) �.001ADD relationship variables .20 .03 .99(9,107) ns

WomenRelationship variables .15 4.10(4,95) �.004

ADD individual variables .31 .16 4.16(9,90) �.002Individual variables .28 7.20(5,94) �.000

ADD relationship variables .31 .03 .99(9,90) nsaF statistic for ADDed variables represents test of change in R2.


their career. This happens in spite of the fact that many fewer women thanmen were working outside the home when the study was carried out.

We were also interested in finding out which variables among someconcerning characteristics of individuals and couples were related to careersalience in men and women. Results show that the personal variables relatedto career salience in women (high educational attainment, equalitariangender ideology) differ from those related to career salience in men (highinstrumentality, sexist gender ideology, and not having a job). The samecan be said about characteristics of couples: having children and beingdependent in their relationship were related to lower career salience inwomen but these factors did not affect career salience in men. Our resultsalso indicate how women’s career salience is related to some characteristicsof their partners (their equalitarian gender ideology, high educational at-tainment, not having a job, and expressivity), whereas men’s career salienceis unrelated to partner characteristics.

Some of these results match those reached in other studies, as happenswith the variables gender ideology (Peplau et al., 1993; Phillips & Imhoff,1997), educational attainment (Basow, 1992; Tharenou & Conroy, 1994;Melamed, 1995), and instrumentality (Basow, 1992; Miller & Garrison,1982; Phillips & Imhoff, 1997). The results concerning marriage/living to-gether (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Valdez & Gutek, 1987) and children(White & Cooper, 1994) also match those reached in other studies.

Thus, according to our data, the fact that women have increasinglyentered advanced educational training seems important for women’s careersalience. This has happened in Western countries including Spain over thelast years. However, our results also show that for women, having a job(versus not being employed) is not related to giving more importance totheir career. Thus, the progressive access of women to the workplace,although very important, does not seem enough to change women’s concep-tions about their career.

Nevertheless, the main findings of our research are those related toclose relationship and men and women’s career salience. Our results suggestthat men’s career salience is more independent of the characteristics oftheir relationship than women’s career salience. Thus, for instance, parent-hood was much more related to a lower career salience among womenthan among men. The strength of the relationship (or the extent to whichpartners influence each other’s everyday behavior, decisions, plans, andgoals) was also related to lower career salience for women but not for men.It is important to underline that the measure selected to assess the strengthof the relationship implies characterizing strength in terms of perceivedinfluence, a feature that defines the interdependence or closeness of therelationship (Kelley et al., 1983). This conceptualization of closeness is


different from others more focused on the affective tone of the relationship.In our study, when closeness was measured with the Strength Subscale ofthe Closeness Relationship Inventory, it appeared to be significantly relatedto women’s career salience. However, when closeness was measured withseveral items concerning satisfaction and emotional tone of the relationship,it did not appear to be related to women’s career salience. This findingsupports the complexity of the closeness relationship construct andincreases the predictive validity of the Closeness Relationship Inventoryand the underlying conceptualization of closeness as interdependence(Berscheid et al., 1989).

Another index of how relationship variables are more important forwomen’s career than for men’s is the fact that women’s career salience isrelated to some characteristics of their partners (their equalitarian genderideology, high educational attainment, not having a job, and expressivity),whereas men’s career salience is unrelated to partner characteristics.

Our results also broadly suggest that men’s career salience is moreindependent of their personal and relationship characteristics. It seems thatmen can take careers for granted: all men have a career of some kind sothis is not problematic. In contrast, careers for women are newer, so theseissues are more related to personal and relationship characteristics. Inaccordance with those authors who have studied the career developmentof women, we can say that the process is more complex for women thanfor men (Diamond, 1988) because of the differences in socialization andin the combination of attitudes, role expectations, behaviors, and sanctionsthat comprise it. Also, compared to men, women’s behavior in the work-place (i.e., turnover, career advancement) may be more influenced by theirattitudes (Stroh et al., 1996) because, according to traditional gender roles,women are viewed as having less financial responsibility for their fami-ly’s income.

Our results replicate some well-established relationships in Americanand British samples on an understudied population: Spanish couples. It istrue that prior to the economic development of the 1960s, Spain was a poorcountry, most Spaniards lived in rural villages, and gender roles were quitetraditional. However, Spain is now an industrial nation and its citizenslive in an increasingly modern urban society. From a land of deep-rootedtraditions and long-established customs where strictly conventional behav-iors were the norm, Spain has changed and today closely resembles itsEuropean counterparts. Results of this research about educational attain-ment, career salience, instrumentality, or gender ideology confirm this real-ity. However, results concerning the influence that close relationship andpartner characteristics have on women’s career salience may suggest thattraditional conceptions about women, work, and family still have some


influence in Spain. Further research is needed to analyze whether this facttakes place only in countries that have recently experienced economic andsocial changes or is also present in countries that experienced the changessome time ago.

Our results underline the importance of characteristics of couples,particularly the degree of interdependence, in relation to career salience.This is an important issue that has largely been neglected in the literatureon the subject and needs to be examined by work–family researchers.Further research is needed to replicate these results with different popula-tions (from Spain and from other countries) and it would be desirable tostudy the influence of other variables concerning close relationship charac-teristics on women and men’s career salience and development.

REFERENCES

Basow, S. A. (1992). Gender, stereotypes and roles (3rd ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The relationship Closeness Inventory:

Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 57(5), 792–807.

Betz, N. E. (1994). Basic issues and concepts in career counseling for women. In W. B.Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women (pp. 1–41). Hillsdale, NJ.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. New York: Academic.Bronstein, P., Black, L., Pfening, J. L., & White, A. (1987). Stepping onto the academic ladder:

Comparison of women and men applicants for junior faculty positions. In B. A. Gutek &L. Larwood (Eds.), Women’s career development (pp. 110–128). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brooks, L., & Forrest, L. (1994). Feminism and career counseling. In W. B. Walsh & S.H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women (pp. 87–134). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Chow, E. N. (1987). The influence of sex-role identity and occupational attainment on thepsychological well-being of Asian American women. Psychology of Women Quarterly,11, 69–81.

Claes, R., Martin, G., Coetsier, P., & Super, D. E. (1995). Homemakers and employed womenin Belgian Flanders and the Southeast United States. In D. E. Super & B. Sverko (Eds.),Life roles, values, and careers. (pp. 325–338). San Francisco, Jossey–Bass.

Covin, T. J., & Brush, C. C. (1991). An examination of male and female attitudes towardcareer and family issues. Sex Roles, 27(7/8), 393–415.

Diamond, E. E. (1988). Women’s occupational plans and decisions: An introduction. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 37(2), 97–102.

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Applyingthe Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly,18, 585–609.

Eckenrode, J., & Gore, S. (1990). Stress and coping at the boundary of work and family. InJ. Eckenrode & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work and family (pp. 1–16). New York:Plenum Press.

Etaugh, C., & Nekolny, K. (1990). Effects of employment status and marital status on percep-tions of mothers. Sex Roles, 23, 273–280.

Farmer, H. S. (1985). Model of career and achievement motivation for women and men.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(3), 363–390.

Gerstein, M., Lichtman, M., & Barokas, J. V. (1988). Occupational plans of adolescent women


compared to men: A cross-sectional examination. Career Development Quarterly, 36,222–230.

Gilbert, L. A. (1993). Two careers/One family. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Gilbert, L. A., Hallett, M., & Eldridge, N. S. (1994). Gender and dual-career families: Implica-

tions and applications for the career counseling of women. In W. B., Walsh & S. H.Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women (pp. 135–164). Hillsdale, N.J: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Greenhaus, J. H. (1971). An investigation of the role of career salience in vocational behavior.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 209–216.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Simon, W. E. (1971). Career salience, work values, and vocationalindecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 104–110.

Gutek, B. A. (1988). Sex segregation and women at work: A selective review. Applied Psychol-ogy: An International Review, 37, 103–120.

Hackett, G., Esposito, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1989). The relationship of role model influencesto the career salience and educational and career plans of college women. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 35, 164–180.

Hardesty, S. A., & Best, N. E. (1980). The relationship of career salience, attitudes towardwomen and demographic and family characteristics to marital adjustment in dual careercouples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 242–250.

Hock, E., & DeMeis, D. K. (1990). Depression in mothers of infants: The role of maternalemployment. Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 285–291.

Holm, V. L., & Esses, L. M. (1988). Factor influencing Canadian high school girls’ careermotivation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 313–328.

INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica) [Spanish Statistics Institute] (1999). Encuesta de pobla-cion activa. Madrid: INE.

Instituto de la Mujer [Spanish Women’s Institute] (1997). La mujer en cifras. Madrid: Ministeriode Asuntos Sociales [Ministry of Social Matters].

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Jozefowicz, D. M., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. (1993). Adolescents’ work-related values andbeliefs: Gender differences and relation to occupational aspirations. Paper presented atBiennial Meeting of the Society for Research on child Development. New Orleans.

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G.,McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. NewYork: Freeman.

Kotkin, M. (1983). Sex role among married and unmarried couples. Sex Roles, 9, 975–985.Kush, K., & Cochran, L. (1993). Enhancing a sense of agency through career planning. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 40(4), 434–439.Leung, S. A., Conoley, C. W., & Scheel, M. J. (1994). The careers and educational aspirations

of gifted high school students: A retrospective study. Journal of Counseling Development,72, 298–303.

Mednick, M. T., & Thomas, V. G. (1993). Women and the psychology of achievement: a viewfrom the eighties. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women. Ahandbook of issues and theories (pp. 585–626). Westport: Greenwood Press.

Melamed, T. (1995). Career success: The moderating effect of gender. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 47, 35–60.

Miller, J., & Garrison, H. H. (1982). Sex roles: The division of labor at home and in theworkplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 237–262.

Moya, M., & Peplau, L. A. (1992). Comparing the career aspirations of women and men inSpain and the United States, Unpublished manuscript.

Moya, M., Navas, M., & Gomez, C. (1991). Escala sobre la Ideologıa del Rol Sexual. Paperpresented at the III Congreso de Psicologıa Social, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

Peplau, L. A., Hill, C. T., & Rubin, Z. (1993). Sex role attitudes in dating and marriage: A15-year follow-up of the Boston couples study. Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 31–52.

Pfost, K. S., & Fiore, M. (1990). Pursuit of nontraditional occupations: Fear of success or fearor not being chosen? Sex Roles, 23(1/2), 15–24.


Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: A decade of research.Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 31–59.

Shelton, B. A., & Firestone, J. (1988). Time constraints of men and women: Linking householdlabor to paid labor. Sociology and Social Research, 72, 102–105.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objectiveinstrument to measure attitudes towards the rights and roles of women in contemporarysociety. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2. No. 66.

Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. (1996). Family structure, glass cieling, and traditionalexplanations for the differential rate of turnover of female and male managers. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 49, 99–118.

Tharenou, P., & Conroy, D. (1994). Men and women managers’ advancement: Personal andsituational determinants? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43(1), 5–31.

Valdez, R., & Gutek, B. A. (1987). Family roles: A help or a hindrance to working women?In B. A. Gutek & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women’s career development (pp. 159–169). New-bury Park, CA: Sage.

White, B. L., & Cooper, C. L. (1994). The career development of successful women. Proceed-ings of the British Psychological Society, 2(2), August.

Close Relationships, Gender, and Career Salience

Documents

Transcript of Close Relationships, Gender, and Career Salience